Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 591

control, N = 291

treatment, N = 301

p-value2

age

59

50.48 ± 12.64 (25 - 74)

49.40 ± 13.03 (25 - 74)

51.53 ± 12.37 (31 - 72)

0.521

gender

59

0.713

f

40 (68%)

19 (66%)

21 (70%)

m

19 (32%)

10 (34%)

9 (30%)

occupation

59

0.932

day_training

1 (1.7%)

1 (3.4%)

0 (0%)

full_time

6 (10%)

4 (14%)

2 (6.7%)

homemaker

4 (6.8%)

2 (6.9%)

2 (6.7%)

other

2 (3.4%)

0 (0%)

2 (6.7%)

part_time

10 (17%)

5 (17%)

5 (17%)

retired

14 (24%)

6 (21%)

8 (27%)

self_employ

2 (3.4%)

1 (3.4%)

1 (3.3%)

student

1 (1.7%)

0 (0%)

1 (3.3%)

t_and_e

2 (3.4%)

1 (3.4%)

1 (3.3%)

unemploy

17 (29%)

9 (31%)

8 (27%)

marital

59

>0.999

cohabitation

1 (1.7%)

0 (0%)

1 (3.3%)

divore

5 (8.5%)

3 (10%)

2 (6.7%)

married

13 (22%)

6 (21%)

7 (23%)

none

34 (58%)

17 (59%)

17 (57%)

seperation

3 (5.1%)

2 (6.9%)

1 (3.3%)

widow

3 (5.1%)

1 (3.4%)

2 (6.7%)

edu

59

0.941

bachelor

19 (32%)

9 (31%)

10 (33%)

diploma

9 (15%)

6 (21%)

3 (10%)

hd_ad

2 (3.4%)

1 (3.4%)

1 (3.3%)

postgraduate

6 (10%)

3 (10%)

3 (10%)

primary

4 (6.8%)

1 (3.4%)

3 (10%)

secondary_1_3

4 (6.8%)

2 (6.9%)

2 (6.7%)

secondary_4_5

14 (24%)

7 (24%)

7 (23%)

secondary_6_7

1 (1.7%)

0 (0%)

1 (3.3%)

fam_income

59

0.843

10001_12000

3 (5.1%)

1 (3.4%)

2 (6.7%)

12001_14000

4 (6.8%)

2 (6.9%)

2 (6.7%)

14001_16000

5 (8.5%)

2 (6.9%)

3 (10%)

16001_18000

2 (3.4%)

1 (3.4%)

1 (3.3%)

18001_20000

3 (5.1%)

3 (10%)

0 (0%)

20001_above

9 (15%)

6 (21%)

3 (10%)

2001_4000

6 (10%)

3 (10%)

3 (10%)

4001_6000

9 (15%)

4 (14%)

5 (17%)

6001_8000

6 (10%)

3 (10%)

3 (10%)

8001_10000

4 (6.8%)

1 (3.4%)

3 (10%)

below_2000

8 (14%)

3 (10%)

5 (17%)

medication

59

49 (83%)

25 (86%)

24 (80%)

0.731

onset_duration

59

14.96 ± 12.10 (0 - 56)

17.01 ± 13.49 (1 - 56)

12.98 ± 10.43 (0 - 35)

0.204

onset_age

59

35.52 ± 13.62 (15 - 64)

32.39 ± 11.95 (16 - 55)

38.55 ± 14.61 (15 - 64)

0.082

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 591

control, N = 291

treatment, N = 301

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

59

3.25 ± 1.21 (1 - 5)

3.21 ± 1.26 (1 - 5)

3.30 ± 1.18 (1 - 5)

0.771

recovery_stage_b

59

17.98 ± 2.62 (9 - 23)

17.93 ± 2.84 (9 - 23)

18.03 ± 2.44 (14 - 23)

0.882

ras_confidence

59

30.25 ± 4.70 (19 - 40)

29.76 ± 4.34 (19 - 40)

30.73 ± 5.04 (20 - 39)

0.430

ras_willingness

59

12.14 ± 1.98 (7 - 15)

12.07 ± 1.77 (9 - 15)

12.20 ± 2.19 (7 - 15)

0.802

ras_goal

59

17.44 ± 2.84 (12 - 24)

17.48 ± 2.73 (12 - 23)

17.40 ± 2.99 (12 - 24)

0.912

ras_reliance

59

13.31 ± 2.88 (8 - 20)

13.07 ± 2.72 (8 - 18)

13.53 ± 3.06 (8 - 20)

0.541

ras_domination

59

9.98 ± 2.23 (3 - 15)

10.48 ± 1.88 (7 - 15)

9.50 ± 2.46 (3 - 14)

0.091

symptom

59

29.93 ± 9.77 (14 - 56)

29.66 ± 9.27 (14 - 48)

30.20 ± 10.39 (15 - 56)

0.833

slof_work

59

22.36 ± 4.89 (10 - 30)

22.41 ± 4.52 (15 - 30)

22.30 ± 5.30 (10 - 30)

0.930

slof_relationship

59

25.68 ± 5.99 (11 - 35)

25.34 ± 6.18 (13 - 35)

26.00 ± 5.90 (11 - 35)

0.678

satisfaction

59

20.83 ± 6.47 (5 - 30)

19.38 ± 6.06 (5 - 29)

22.23 ± 6.65 (5 - 30)

0.091

mhc_emotional

59

11.25 ± 3.71 (4 - 18)

10.97 ± 3.09 (6 - 17)

11.53 ± 4.26 (4 - 18)

0.561

mhc_social

59

14.58 ± 5.07 (6 - 26)

14.93 ± 5.09 (7 - 26)

14.23 ± 5.11 (6 - 23)

0.601

mhc_psychological

59

21.90 ± 5.95 (6 - 36)

21.48 ± 5.70 (10 - 33)

22.30 ± 6.25 (6 - 36)

0.602

resilisnce

59

16.53 ± 4.53 (6 - 25)

16.28 ± 4.46 (6 - 24)

16.77 ± 4.65 (7 - 25)

0.681

social_provision

59

13.69 ± 3.02 (5 - 20)

13.38 ± 2.72 (8 - 20)

14.00 ± 3.31 (5 - 19)

0.435

els_value_living

59

17.19 ± 2.96 (5 - 23)

16.72 ± 2.52 (12 - 22)

17.63 ± 3.31 (5 - 23)

0.241

els_life_fulfill

59

12.85 ± 3.25 (4 - 18)

11.83 ± 3.12 (5 - 17)

13.83 ± 3.11 (4 - 18)

0.016

els

59

30.03 ± 5.49 (9 - 40)

28.55 ± 4.53 (20 - 36)

31.47 ± 6.02 (9 - 40)

0.040

social_connect

59

26.75 ± 9.39 (8 - 48)

26.93 ± 8.11 (8 - 45)

26.57 ± 10.61 (8 - 48)

0.883

shs_agency

59

14.37 ± 4.63 (3 - 21)

13.66 ± 4.25 (3 - 20)

15.07 ± 4.93 (3 - 21)

0.245

shs_pathway

59

16.58 ± 3.76 (4 - 22)

15.93 ± 3.50 (8 - 22)

17.20 ± 3.94 (4 - 22)

0.197

shs

59

30.95 ± 7.85 (7 - 42)

29.59 ± 7.37 (14 - 41)

32.27 ± 8.19 (7 - 42)

0.192

esteem

59

12.51 ± 1.24 (10 - 15)

12.55 ± 1.15 (10 - 14)

12.47 ± 1.33 (10 - 15)

0.794

mlq_search

59

14.83 ± 3.44 (3 - 21)

14.79 ± 3.27 (6 - 21)

14.87 ± 3.66 (3 - 20)

0.935

mlq_presence

59

13.63 ± 4.03 (3 - 21)

13.86 ± 3.13 (6 - 20)

13.40 ± 4.79 (3 - 21)

0.664

mlq

59

28.46 ± 6.76 (6 - 41)

28.66 ± 6.03 (12 - 40)

28.27 ± 7.50 (6 - 41)

0.828

empower

59

19.61 ± 4.25 (6 - 28)

19.24 ± 3.88 (11 - 24)

19.97 ± 4.62 (6 - 28)

0.517

ismi_resistance

59

14.63 ± 2.78 (5 - 20)

14.48 ± 2.34 (11 - 19)

14.77 ± 3.18 (5 - 20)

0.698

ismi_discrimation

59

11.41 ± 3.38 (5 - 19)

12.41 ± 2.86 (5 - 18)

10.43 ± 3.61 (5 - 19)

0.023

sss_affective

59

9.98 ± 4.07 (3 - 18)

10.66 ± 3.56 (3 - 18)

9.33 ± 4.47 (3 - 18)

0.215

sss_behavior

59

9.68 ± 4.13 (3 - 18)

10.52 ± 4.07 (3 - 18)

8.87 ± 4.10 (3 - 18)

0.126

sss_cognitive

59

8.32 ± 4.17 (3 - 18)

8.69 ± 4.38 (3 - 18)

7.97 ± 4.00 (3 - 18)

0.511

sss

59

27.98 ± 11.51 (9 - 54)

29.86 ± 10.74 (9 - 54)

26.17 ± 12.11 (9 - 54)

0.221

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.21

0.225

2.77, 3.65

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.093

0.315

-0.525, 0.711

0.768

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.291

0.341

-0.377, 0.959

0.397

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.020

0.465

-0.933, 0.892

0.965

Pseudo R square

0.014

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

17.9

0.507

16.9, 18.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.102

0.712

-1.29, 1.50

0.886

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.154

0.694

-1.51, 1.21

0.826

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.610

0.945

-1.24, 2.46

0.522

Pseudo R square

0.007

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

29.8

0.935

27.9, 31.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.975

1.311

-1.59, 3.54

0.460

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.501

0.988

-1.44, 2.44

0.615

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.059

1.342

-2.57, 2.69

0.965

Pseudo R square

0.013

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

12.1

0.376

11.3, 12.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.131

0.527

-0.902, 1.16

0.804

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.881

0.361

-1.59, -0.173

0.020

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.706

0.490

-0.255, 1.67

0.159

Pseudo R square

0.029

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.5

0.576

16.4, 18.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.083

0.808

-1.67, 1.50

0.919

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.851

0.623

-2.07, 0.371

0.180

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.48

0.847

-0.184, 3.14

0.089

Pseudo R square

0.018

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

13.1

0.527

12.0, 14.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.464

0.739

-0.984, 1.91

0.532

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.233

0.467

-0.682, 1.15

0.621

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.728

0.634

-0.514, 1.97

0.258

Pseudo R square

0.031

ras_domination

(Intercept)

10.5

0.412

9.68, 11.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.983

0.578

-2.11, 0.149

0.093

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.471

0.544

-1.54, 0.595

0.391

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.28

0.740

-0.172, 2.73

0.092

Pseudo R square

0.034

symptom

(Intercept)

29.7

1.834

26.1, 33.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.545

2.572

-4.50, 5.59

0.833

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.640

1.270

-3.13, 1.85

0.618

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.180

1.721

-3.55, 3.19

0.917

Pseudo R square

0.002

slof_work

(Intercept)

22.4

0.917

20.6, 24.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.114

1.286

-2.64, 2.41

0.930

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.127

0.708

-1.52, 1.26

0.859

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.19

0.961

-3.08, 0.690

0.223

Pseudo R square

0.012

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

25.3

1.110

23.2, 27.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.655

1.557

-2.40, 3.71

0.675

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-1.20

1.011

-3.18, 0.785

0.245

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.536

1.372

-2.15, 3.23

0.699

Pseudo R square

0.010

satisfaction

(Intercept)

19.4

1.250

16.9, 21.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.85

1.753

-0.582, 6.29

0.108

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.909

1.380

-1.80, 3.61

0.514

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.79

1.875

-5.47, 1.88

0.345

Pseudo R square

0.030

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

11.0

0.688

9.62, 12.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.568

0.965

-1.32, 2.46

0.558

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.722

0.638

-0.529, 1.97

0.266

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.29

0.866

-2.99, 0.403

0.144

Pseudo R square

0.007

mhc_social

(Intercept)

14.9

0.988

13.0, 16.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.698

1.386

-3.41, 2.02

0.616

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.22

1.073

-0.881, 3.32

0.262

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.38

1.458

-4.23, 1.48

0.351

Pseudo R square

0.018

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

21.5

1.171

19.2, 23.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.817

1.642

-2.40, 4.04

0.620

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.01

1.191

-1.33, 3.34

0.403

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.16

1.618

-5.33, 1.01

0.190

Pseudo R square

0.007

resilisnce

(Intercept)

16.3

0.809

14.7, 17.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.491

1.135

-1.73, 2.71

0.667

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.544

0.756

-0.938, 2.03

0.476

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.165

1.027

-1.85, 2.18

0.873

Pseudo R square

0.009

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.4

0.550

12.3, 14.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.621

0.771

-0.891, 2.13

0.424

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.429

0.579

-1.56, 0.705

0.463

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.266

0.786

-1.27, 1.81

0.737

Pseudo R square

0.017

els_value_living

(Intercept)

16.7

0.548

15.6, 17.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.909

0.769

-0.598, 2.42

0.241

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.619

0.551

-0.462, 1.70

0.269

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.465

0.749

-1.93, 1.00

0.538

Pseudo R square

0.021

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

11.8

0.561

10.7, 12.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.01

0.786

0.465, 3.55

0.013

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.12

0.575

-0.003, 2.25

0.059

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.925

0.781

-2.46, 0.607

0.244

Pseudo R square

0.087

els

(Intercept)

28.6

0.985

26.6, 30.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.91

1.382

0.207, 5.62

0.039

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.67

0.931

-0.153, 3.50

0.081

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.32

1.264

-3.79, 1.16

0.305

Pseudo R square

0.062

social_connect

(Intercept)

26.9

1.715

23.6, 30.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.364

2.406

-5.08, 4.35

0.880

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.660

1.339

-1.96, 3.28

0.625

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.530

1.816

-4.09, 3.03

0.772

Pseudo R square

0.001

shs_agency

(Intercept)

13.7

0.863

12.0, 15.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.41

1.210

-0.961, 3.78

0.248

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.364

0.861

-1.32, 2.05

0.675

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.248

1.169

-2.04, 2.54

0.833

Pseudo R square

0.029

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

15.9

0.686

14.6, 17.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.27

0.962

-0.616, 3.15

0.192

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.599

0.601

-0.579, 1.78

0.326

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.782

0.816

-2.38, 0.817

0.345

Pseudo R square

0.021

shs

(Intercept)

29.6

1.444

26.8, 32.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.68

2.025

-1.29, 6.65

0.190

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.912

1.290

-1.62, 3.44

0.484

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.458

1.751

-3.89, 2.97

0.795

Pseudo R square

0.028

esteem

(Intercept)

12.6

0.228

12.1, 13.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.085

0.320

-0.712, 0.542

0.791

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.626

0.383

-0.124, 1.38

0.109

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.363

0.524

-1.39, 0.664

0.492

Pseudo R square

0.039

mlq_search

(Intercept)

14.8

0.644

13.5, 16.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.074

0.903

-1.70, 1.84

0.935

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.032

0.804

-1.54, 1.61

0.968

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.164

1.094

-2.31, 1.98

0.882

Pseudo R square

0.000

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

13.9

0.740

12.4, 15.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.462

1.038

-2.50, 1.57

0.658

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.069

0.886

-1.81, 1.67

0.939

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.192

1.205

-2.17, 2.55

0.874

Pseudo R square

0.003

mlq

(Intercept)

28.7

1.275

26.2, 31.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.389

1.788

-3.89, 3.12

0.829

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.068

1.528

-3.06, 2.93

0.965

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.056

2.078

-4.02, 4.13

0.979

Pseudo R square

0.001

empower

(Intercept)

19.2

0.758

17.8, 20.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.725

1.063

-1.36, 2.81

0.497

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.147

0.713

-1.25, 1.54

0.838

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.871

0.968

-2.77, 1.03

0.374

Pseudo R square

0.006

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

14.5

0.485

13.5, 15.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.284

0.681

-1.05, 1.62

0.678

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.542

0.669

-0.769, 1.85

0.422

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.639

0.911

-2.43, 1.15

0.487

Pseudo R square

0.005

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

12.4

0.614

11.2, 13.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.98

0.861

-3.67, -0.293

0.025

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.975

0.597

-2.14, 0.195

0.111

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.52

0.810

-0.070, 3.11

0.069

Pseudo R square

0.057

sss_affective

(Intercept)

10.7

0.723

9.24, 12.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.32

1.014

-3.31, 0.666

0.197

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.023

0.603

-1.16, 1.20

0.970

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.842

0.818

-2.44, 0.760

0.310

Pseudo R square

0.048

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

10.5

0.730

9.09, 11.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.65

1.024

-3.66, 0.356

0.112

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.283

0.652

-1.56, 0.994

0.666

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.378

0.884

-2.11, 1.35

0.671

Pseudo R square

0.054

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

8.69

0.761

7.20, 10.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.723

1.067

-2.81, 1.37

0.501

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.857

0.611

-0.341, 2.05

0.170

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.65

0.829

-3.27, -0.021

0.055

Pseudo R square

0.034

sss

(Intercept)

29.9

2.057

25.8, 33.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-3.70

2.885

-9.35, 1.96

0.205

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.662

1.544

-2.37, 3.69

0.671

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.93

2.094

-7.04, 1.17

0.171

Pseudo R square

0.050

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.29) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.21 (95% CI [2.77, 3.65], t(86) = 14.27, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.71], t(86) = 0.30, p = 0.768; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.59])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.96], t(86) = 0.85, p = 0.393; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.80])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.93, 0.89], t(86) = -0.04, p = 0.965; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.78, 0.74])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.45) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.33e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.93 (95% CI [16.94, 18.93], t(86) = 35.33, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-1.29, 1.50], t(86) = 0.14, p = 0.886; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.55])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-1.51, 1.21], t(86) = -0.22, p = 0.825; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.44])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-1.24, 2.46], t(86) = 0.65, p = 0.518; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.91])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.76 (95% CI [27.93, 31.59], t(86) = 31.84, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [-1.59, 3.54], t(86) = 0.74, p = 0.457; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.71])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-1.44, 2.44], t(86) = 0.51, p = 0.612; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.49])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-2.57, 2.69], t(86) = 0.04, p = 0.965; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.54])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.07 (95% CI [11.33, 12.81], t(86) = 32.11, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.90, 1.16], t(86) = 0.25, p = 0.804; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.58])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.88, 95% CI [-1.59, -0.17], t(86) = -2.44, p = 0.015; Std. beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-0.79, -0.09])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-0.26, 1.67], t(86) = 1.44, p = 0.150; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.83])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.48 (95% CI [16.35, 18.61], t(86) = 30.35, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-1.67, 1.50], t(86) = -0.10, p = 0.918; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.48])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.85, 95% CI [-2.07, 0.37], t(86) = -1.37, p = 0.172; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.12])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.48, 95% CI [-0.18, 3.14], t(86) = 1.74, p = 0.081; Std. beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.06, 1.00])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.07 (95% CI [12.04, 14.10], t(86) = 24.80, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.98, 1.91], t(86) = 0.63, p = 0.530; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.65])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.68, 1.15], t(86) = 0.50, p = 0.618; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.39])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-0.51, 1.97], t(86) = 1.15, p = 0.250; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.67])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.50) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.48 (95% CI [9.68, 11.29], t(86) = 25.45, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.98, 95% CI [-2.11, 0.15], t(86) = -1.70, p = 0.089; Std. beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-0.95, 0.07])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-1.54, 0.60], t(86) = -0.87, p = 0.387; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.28, 95% CI [-0.17, 2.73], t(86) = 1.73, p = 0.084; Std. beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-0.08, 1.23])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.87) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.84e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.66 (95% CI [26.06, 33.25], t(86) = 16.17, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-4.50, 5.59], t(86) = 0.21, p = 0.832; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.55])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.64, 95% CI [-3.13, 1.85], t(86) = -0.50, p = 0.614; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.18])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-3.55, 3.19], t(86) = -0.10, p = 0.917; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.32])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.41 (95% CI [20.62, 24.21], t(86) = 24.43, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-2.64, 2.41], t(86) = -0.09, p = 0.930; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.48])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-1.52, 1.26], t(86) = -0.18, p = 0.858; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.19, 95% CI [-3.08, 0.69], t(86) = -1.24, p = 0.214; Std. beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.14])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 25.34 (95% CI [23.17, 27.52], t(86) = 22.82, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-2.40, 3.71], t(86) = 0.42, p = 0.674; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.64])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.20, 95% CI [-3.18, 0.78], t(86) = -1.18, p = 0.236; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.13])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-2.15, 3.23], t(86) = 0.39, p = 0.696; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.55])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.38 (95% CI [16.93, 21.83], t(86) = 15.50, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.85, 95% CI [-0.58, 6.29], t(86) = 1.63, p = 0.104; Std. beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.92])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [-1.80, 3.61], t(86) = 0.66, p = 0.510; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.53])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.79, 95% CI [-5.47, 1.88], t(86) = -0.96, p = 0.339; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.80, 0.28])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.23e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.97 (95% CI [9.62, 12.31], t(86) = 15.93, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-1.32, 2.46], t(86) = 0.59, p = 0.556; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.67])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.53, 1.97], t(86) = 1.13, p = 0.258; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.54])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.29, 95% CI [-2.99, 0.40], t(86) = -1.49, p = 0.135; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.82, 0.11])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.93 (95% CI [12.99, 16.87], t(86) = 15.11, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.70, 95% CI [-3.41, 2.02], t(86) = -0.50, p = 0.615; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.38])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.22, 95% CI [-0.88, 3.32], t(86) = 1.14, p = 0.255; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.63])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.38, 95% CI [-4.23, 1.48], t(86) = -0.94, p = 0.345; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.80, 0.28])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.88e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.48 (95% CI [19.19, 23.78], t(86) = 18.35, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.82, 95% CI [-2.40, 4.04], t(86) = 0.50, p = 0.619; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.64])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-1.33, 3.34], t(86) = 0.85, p = 0.398; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.53])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.16, 95% CI [-5.33, 1.01], t(86) = -1.34, p = 0.181; Std. beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-0.85, 0.16])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.22e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.28 (95% CI [14.69, 17.86], t(86) = 20.11, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-1.73, 2.71], t(86) = 0.43, p = 0.665; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.63])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.94, 2.03], t(86) = 0.72, p = 0.472; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.47])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-1.85, 2.18], t(86) = 0.16, p = 0.872; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.50])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.38 (95% CI [12.30, 14.46], t(86) = 24.32, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-0.89, 2.13], t(86) = 0.80, p = 0.421; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.72])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-1.56, 0.71], t(86) = -0.74, p = 0.459; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.24])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-1.27, 1.81], t(86) = 0.34, p = 0.735; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.61])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.72 (95% CI [15.65, 17.80], t(86) = 30.50, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [-0.60, 2.42], t(86) = 1.18, p = 0.237; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.81])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-0.46, 1.70], t(86) = 1.12, p = 0.262; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.57])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-1.93, 1.00], t(86) = -0.62, p = 0.534; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.33])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.09. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.83 (95% CI [10.73, 12.93], t(86) = 21.10, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.01, 95% CI [0.47, 3.55], t(86) = 2.55, p = 0.011; Std. beta = 0.64, 95% CI [0.15, 1.14])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.12, 95% CI [-3.49e-03, 2.25], t(86) = 1.95, p = 0.051; Std. beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-1.12e-03, 0.72])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.93, 95% CI [-2.46, 0.61], t(86) = -1.18, p = 0.236; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.79, 0.19])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.55 (95% CI [26.62, 30.48], t(86) = 28.98, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.91, 95% CI [0.21, 5.62], t(86) = 2.11, p = 0.035; Std. beta = 0.53, 95% CI [0.04, 1.02])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.67, 95% CI [-0.15, 3.50], t(86) = 1.80, p = 0.073; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.64])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.32, 95% CI [-3.79, 1.16], t(86) = -1.04, p = 0.298; Std. beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.21])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.44e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.93 (95% CI [23.57, 30.29], t(86) = 15.70, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-5.08, 4.35], t(86) = -0.15, p = 0.880; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.47])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-1.96, 3.28], t(86) = 0.49, p = 0.622; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.35])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.53, 95% CI [-4.09, 3.03], t(86) = -0.29, p = 0.770; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.32])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.66 (95% CI [11.96, 15.35], t(86) = 15.82, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.41, 95% CI [-0.96, 3.78], t(86) = 1.17, p = 0.244; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.81])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-1.32, 2.05], t(86) = 0.42, p = 0.673; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.44])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-2.04, 2.54], t(86) = 0.21, p = 0.832; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.54])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.93 (95% CI [14.59, 17.28], t(86) = 23.23, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.27, 95% CI [-0.62, 3.15], t(86) = 1.32, p = 0.187; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.86])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.78], t(86) = 1.00, p = 0.319; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.48])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.78, 95% CI [-2.38, 0.82], t(86) = -0.96, p = 0.338; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.22])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.59 (95% CI [26.76, 32.42], t(86) = 20.49, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.68, 95% CI [-1.29, 6.65], t(86) = 1.32, p = 0.186; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.85])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [-1.62, 3.44], t(86) = 0.71, p = 0.480; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.44])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-3.89, 2.97], t(86) = -0.26, p = 0.794; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.38])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is weak (conditional R2 = 0.09) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.55 (95% CI [12.10, 13.00], t(86) = 55.04, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.54], t(86) = -0.27, p = 0.790; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.44])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-0.12, 1.38], t(86) = 1.64, p = 0.102; Std. beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.10, 1.12])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-1.39, 0.66], t(86) = -0.69, p = 0.488; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-1.13, 0.54])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.55) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.91e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.79 (95% CI [13.53, 16.06], t(86) = 22.98, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-1.70, 1.84], t(86) = 0.08, p = 0.935; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.54])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-1.54, 1.61], t(86) = 0.04, p = 0.968; Std. beta = 9.55e-03, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.47])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-2.31, 1.98], t(86) = -0.15, p = 0.881; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.58])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.59e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.86 (95% CI [12.41, 15.31], t(86) = 18.73, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-2.50, 1.57], t(86) = -0.45, p = 0.656; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.40])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-1.81, 1.67], t(86) = -0.08, p = 0.938; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.42])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-2.17, 2.55], t(86) = 0.16, p = 0.874; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.65])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.43e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.66 (95% CI [26.16, 31.15], t(86) = 22.48, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-3.89, 3.12], t(86) = -0.22, p = 0.828; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.46])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-3.06, 2.93], t(86) = -0.04, p = 0.964; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.43])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-4.02, 4.13], t(86) = 0.03, p = 0.978; Std. beta = 8.29e-03, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.61])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.46e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.24 (95% CI [17.76, 20.73], t(86) = 25.38, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-1.36, 2.81], t(86) = 0.68, p = 0.495; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.69])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-1.25, 1.54], t(86) = 0.21, p = 0.837; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.87, 95% CI [-2.77, 1.03], t(86) = -0.90, p = 0.368; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.25])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.43) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.96e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.48 (95% CI [13.53, 15.43], t(86) = 29.84, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-1.05, 1.62], t(86) = 0.42, p = 0.677; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.63])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.77, 1.85], t(86) = 0.81, p = 0.418; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.72])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.64, 95% CI [-2.43, 1.15], t(86) = -0.70, p = 0.483; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.94, 0.44])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.41 (95% CI [11.21, 13.62], t(86) = 20.21, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.98, 95% CI [-3.67, -0.29], t(86) = -2.30, p = 0.021; Std. beta = -0.59, 95% CI [-1.10, -0.09])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.97, 95% CI [-2.14, 0.20], t(86) = -1.63, p = 0.103; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.06])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.52, 95% CI [-0.07, 3.11], t(86) = 1.87, p = 0.061; Std. beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.93])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.82) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.66 (95% CI [9.24, 12.07], t(86) = 14.73, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.32, 95% CI [-3.31, 0.67], t(86) = -1.30, p = 0.193; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.17])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-1.16, 1.20], t(86) = 0.04, p = 0.970; Std. beta = 5.69e-03, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.84, 95% CI [-2.44, 0.76], t(86) = -1.03, p = 0.303; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.19])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.52 (95% CI [9.09, 11.95], t(86) = 14.40, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.65, 95% CI [-3.66, 0.36], t(86) = -1.61, p = 0.107; Std. beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-0.91, 0.09])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-1.56, 0.99], t(86) = -0.44, p = 0.664; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-2.11, 1.35], t(86) = -0.43, p = 0.669; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.34])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.83) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.69 (95% CI [7.20, 10.18], t(86) = 11.42, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.72, 95% CI [-2.81, 1.37], t(86) = -0.68, p = 0.498; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.34])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [-0.34, 2.05], t(86) = 1.40, p = 0.161; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.51])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.65, 95% CI [-3.27, -0.02], t(86) = -1.98, p = 0.047; Std. beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-0.81, -5.12e-03])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.86) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.86 (95% CI [25.83, 33.89], t(86) = 14.52, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.70, 95% CI [-9.35, 1.96], t(86) = -1.28, p = 0.200; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.17])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-2.37, 3.69], t(86) = 0.43, p = 0.668; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.33])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.93, 95% CI [-7.04, 1.17], t(86) = -1.40, p = 0.162; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.10])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

297.042

304.607

-145.521

291.042

recovery_stage_a

random

6

301.402

316.532

-144.701

289.402

1.640

3

0.650

recovery_stage_b

null

3

441.656

449.221

-217.828

435.656

recovery_stage_b

random

6

446.847

461.978

-217.424

434.847

0.809

3

0.847

ras_confidence

null

3

540.590

548.155

-267.295

534.590

ras_confidence

random

6

545.257

560.387

-266.628

533.257

1.333

3

0.721

ras_willingness

null

3

372.018

379.583

-183.009

366.018

ras_willingness

random

6

371.935

387.066

-179.968

359.935

6.083

3

0.108

ras_goal

null

3

454.878

462.444

-224.439

448.878

ras_goal

random

6

457.553

472.683

-222.776

445.553

3.325

3

0.344

ras_reliance

null

3

429.402

436.968

-211.701

423.402

ras_reliance

random

6

429.168

444.299

-208.584

417.168

6.234

3

0.101

ras_domination

null

3

405.284

412.849

-199.642

399.284

ras_domination

random

6

406.706

421.837

-197.353

394.706

4.578

3

0.205

symptom

null

3

638.022

645.587

-316.011

632.022

symptom

random

6

643.199

658.330

-315.600

631.199

0.823

3

0.844

slof_work

null

3

520.938

528.503

-257.469

514.938

slof_work

random

6

522.633

537.764

-255.316

510.633

4.305

3

0.230

slof_relationship

null

3

564.172

571.737

-279.086

558.172

slof_relationship

random

6

568.010

583.141

-278.005

556.010

2.161

3

0.540

satisfaction

null

3

598.206

605.772

-296.103

592.206

satisfaction

random

6

601.267

616.398

-294.633

589.267

2.939

3

0.401

mhc_emotional

null

3

477.459

485.024

-235.729

471.459

mhc_emotional

random

6

481.133

496.263

-234.566

469.133

2.326

3

0.508

mhc_social

null

3

553.119

560.684

-273.559

547.119

mhc_social

random

6

557.037

572.168

-272.518

545.037

2.082

3

0.556

mhc_psychological

null

3

580.357

587.923

-287.179

574.357

mhc_psychological

random

6

584.464

599.595

-286.232

572.464

1.893

3

0.595

resilisnce

null

3

507.267

514.833

-250.634

501.267

resilisnce

random

6

511.370

526.501

-249.685

499.370

1.897

3

0.594

social_provision

null

3

442.983

450.549

-218.492

436.983

social_provision

random

6

447.404

462.534

-217.702

435.404

1.580

3

0.664

els_value_living

null

3

440.710

448.275

-217.355

434.710

els_value_living

random

6

444.138

459.269

-216.069

432.138

2.572

3

0.462

els_life_fulfill

null

3

452.745

460.311

-223.373

446.745

els_life_fulfill

random

6

449.434

464.565

-218.717

437.434

9.311

3

0.025

els

null

3

549.392

556.957

-271.696

543.392

els

random

6

548.244

563.375

-268.122

536.244

7.148

3

0.067

social_connect

null

3

632.795

640.361

-313.398

626.795

social_connect

random

6

638.477

653.607

-313.238

626.477

0.319

3

0.956

shs_agency

null

3

523.679

531.244

-258.839

517.679

shs_agency

random

6

527.140

542.271

-257.570

515.140

2.539

3

0.468

shs_pathway

null

3

473.407

480.972

-233.703

467.407

shs_pathway

random

6

476.977

492.107

-232.488

464.977

2.430

3

0.488

shs

null

3

611.571

619.136

-302.785

605.571

shs

random

6

615.142

630.272

-301.571

603.142

2.429

3

0.488

esteem

null

3

304.505

312.071

-149.253

298.505

esteem

random

6

306.673

321.804

-147.336

294.673

3.832

3

0.280

mlq_search

null

3

480.091

487.656

-237.045

474.091

mlq_search

random

6

486.055

501.186

-237.028

474.055

0.035

3

0.998

mlq_presence

null

3

503.626

511.191

-248.813

497.626

mlq_presence

random

6

509.417

524.548

-248.709

497.417

0.209

3

0.976

mlq

null

3

603.539

611.104

-298.770

597.539

mlq

random

6

609.486

624.616

-298.743

597.486

0.053

3

0.997

empower

null

3

495.271

502.836

-244.635

489.271

empower

random

6

499.746

514.877

-243.873

487.746

1.525

3

0.677

ismi_resistance

null

3

433.710

441.275

-213.855

427.710

ismi_resistance

random

6

438.988

454.118

-213.494

426.988

0.722

3

0.868

ismi_discrimation

null

3

464.131

471.696

-229.065

458.131

ismi_discrimation

random

6

462.976

478.106

-225.488

450.976

7.155

3

0.067

sss_affective

null

3

482.547

490.113

-238.274

476.547

sss_affective

random

6

483.677

498.808

-235.839

471.677

4.870

3

0.182

sss_behavior

null

3

488.353

495.919

-241.177

482.353

sss_behavior

random

6

489.630

504.760

-238.815

477.630

4.723

3

0.193

sss_cognitive

null

3

489.962

497.527

-241.981

483.962

sss_cognitive

random

6

490.720

505.851

-239.360

478.720

5.242

3

0.155

sss

null

3

668.914

676.479

-331.457

662.914

sss

random

6

669.445

684.575

-328.722

657.445

5.469

3

0.140

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

29

3.21 ± 1.21

30

3.30 ± 1.21

0.768

-0.091

recovery_stage_a

2nd

15

3.50 ± 1.20

-0.283

18

3.57 ± 1.20

-0.264

0.863

-0.071

recovery_stage_b

1st

29

17.93 ± 2.73

30

18.03 ± 2.73

0.886

-0.050

recovery_stage_b

2nd

15

17.78 ± 2.63

0.075

18

18.49 ± 2.65

-0.224

0.442

-0.349

ras_confidence

1st

29

29.76 ± 5.03

30

30.73 ± 5.03

0.460

-0.346

ras_confidence

2nd

15

30.26 ± 4.44

-0.178

18

31.29 ± 4.55

-0.199

0.512

-0.367

ras_willingness

1st

29

12.07 ± 2.02

30

12.20 ± 2.02

0.804

-0.128

ras_willingness

2nd

15

11.19 ± 1.74

0.863

18

12.02 ± 1.79

0.172

0.178

-0.820

ras_goal

1st

29

17.48 ± 3.10

30

17.40 ± 3.10

0.919

0.047

ras_goal

2nd

15

16.63 ± 2.76

0.478

18

18.02 ± 2.82

-0.351

0.156

-0.783

ras_reliance

1st

29

13.07 ± 2.84

30

13.53 ± 2.84

0.532

-0.354

ras_reliance

2nd

15

13.30 ± 2.38

-0.177

18

14.49 ± 2.47

-0.732

0.163

-0.908

ras_domination

1st

29

10.48 ± 2.22

30

9.50 ± 2.22

0.093

0.617

ras_domination

2nd

15

10.01 ± 2.11

0.296

18

10.31 ± 2.13

-0.508

0.690

-0.186

symptom

1st

29

29.66 ± 9.88

30

30.20 ± 9.88

0.833

-0.154

symptom

2nd

15

29.02 ± 7.87

0.181

18

29.38 ± 8.25

0.232

0.897

-0.103

slof_work

1st

29

22.41 ± 4.94

30

22.30 ± 4.94

0.930

0.058

slof_work

2nd

15

22.29 ± 4.02

0.064

18

20.98 ± 4.19

0.667

0.365

0.660

slof_relationship

1st

29

25.34 ± 5.98

30

26.00 ± 5.98

0.675

-0.230

slof_relationship

2nd

15

24.15 ± 5.06

0.420

18

25.34 ± 5.23

0.232

0.509

-0.418

satisfaction

1st

29

19.38 ± 6.73

30

22.23 ± 6.73

0.108

-0.723

satisfaction

2nd

15

20.29 ± 6.03

-0.230

18

21.35 ± 6.15

0.224

0.619

-0.269

mhc_emotional

1st

29

10.97 ± 3.71

30

11.53 ± 3.71

0.558

-0.315

mhc_emotional

2nd

15

11.69 ± 3.15

-0.401

18

10.96 ± 3.25

0.318

0.517

0.404

mhc_social

1st

29

14.93 ± 5.32

30

14.23 ± 5.32

0.616

0.228

mhc_social

2nd

15

16.15 ± 4.74

-0.399

18

14.08 ± 4.84

0.050

0.218

0.677

mhc_psychological

1st

29

21.48 ± 6.31

30

22.30 ± 6.31

0.620

-0.242

mhc_psychological

2nd

15

22.49 ± 5.50

-0.298

18

21.15 ± 5.65

0.341

0.492

0.398

resilisnce

1st

29

16.28 ± 4.36

30

16.77 ± 4.36

0.667

-0.230

resilisnce

2nd

15

16.82 ± 3.71

-0.255

18

17.48 ± 3.83

-0.332

0.620

-0.307

social_provision

1st

29

13.38 ± 2.96

30

14.00 ± 2.96

0.424

-0.377

social_provision

2nd

15

12.95 ± 2.61

0.260

18

13.84 ± 2.67

0.099

0.339

-0.538

els_value_living

1st

29

16.72 ± 2.95

30

17.63 ± 2.95

0.241

-0.582

els_value_living

2nd

15

17.34 ± 2.57

-0.396

18

17.79 ± 2.64

-0.098

0.626

-0.284

els_life_fulfill

1st

29

11.83 ± 3.02

30

13.83 ± 3.02

0.013

-1.227

els_life_fulfill

2nd

15

12.95 ± 2.64

-0.688

18

14.03 ± 2.71

-0.122

0.251

-0.661

els

1st

29

28.55 ± 5.31

30

31.47 ± 5.31

0.039

-1.109

els

2nd

15

30.22 ± 4.53

-0.636

18

31.82 ± 4.67

-0.135

0.322

-0.608

social_connect

1st

29

26.93 ± 9.24

30

26.57 ± 9.24

0.880

0.097

social_connect

2nd

15

27.59 ± 7.53

-0.176

18

26.70 ± 7.85

-0.035

0.740

0.239

shs_agency

1st

29

13.66 ± 4.65

30

15.07 ± 4.65

0.248

-0.579

shs_agency

2nd

15

14.02 ± 4.03

-0.149

18

15.68 ± 4.14

-0.251

0.248

-0.680

shs_pathway

1st

29

15.93 ± 3.69

30

17.20 ± 3.69

0.192

-0.751

shs_pathway

2nd

15

16.53 ± 3.09

-0.355

18

17.02 ± 3.20

0.108

0.659

-0.288

shs

1st

29

29.59 ± 7.77

30

32.27 ± 7.77

0.190

-0.738

shs

2nd

15

30.50 ± 6.55

-0.251

18

32.72 ± 6.77

-0.125

0.342

-0.612

esteem

1st

29

12.55 ± 1.23

30

12.47 ± 1.23

0.791

0.071

esteem

2nd

15

13.18 ± 1.25

-0.525

18

12.73 ± 1.24

-0.221

0.306

0.376

mlq_search

1st

29

14.79 ± 3.47

30

14.87 ± 3.47

0.935

-0.032

mlq_search

2nd

15

14.83 ± 3.23

-0.014

18

14.74 ± 3.27

0.056

0.937

0.039

mlq_presence

1st

29

13.86 ± 3.99

30

13.40 ± 3.99

0.658

0.181

mlq_presence

2nd

15

13.79 ± 3.66

0.027

18

13.52 ± 3.72

-0.048

0.835

0.106

mlq

1st

29

28.66 ± 6.86

30

28.27 ± 6.86

0.829

0.088

mlq

2nd

15

28.59 ± 6.31

0.015

18

28.25 ± 6.41

0.003

0.881

0.075

empower

1st

29

19.24 ± 4.08

30

19.97 ± 4.08

0.497

-0.360

empower

2nd

15

19.39 ± 3.48

-0.073

18

19.24 ± 3.59

0.360

0.906

0.073

ismi_resistance

1st

29

14.48 ± 2.61

30

14.77 ± 2.61

0.678

-0.144

ismi_resistance

2nd

15

15.02 ± 2.52

-0.275

18

14.67 ± 2.54

0.049

0.689

0.180

ismi_discrimation

1st

29

12.41 ± 3.31

30

10.43 ± 3.31

0.025

1.173

ismi_discrimation

2nd

15

11.44 ± 2.85

0.577

18

10.98 ± 2.93

-0.322

0.648

0.274

sss_affective

1st

29

10.66 ± 3.90

30

9.33 ± 3.90

0.197

0.782

sss_affective

2nd

15

10.68 ± 3.22

-0.013

18

8.51 ± 3.35

0.485

0.063

1.281

sss_behavior

1st

29

10.52 ± 3.93

30

8.87 ± 3.93

0.112

0.900

sss_behavior

2nd

15

10.23 ± 3.31

0.155

18

8.20 ± 3.42

0.361

0.088

1.107

sss_cognitive

1st

29

8.69 ± 4.10

30

7.97 ± 4.10

0.501

0.423

sss_cognitive

2nd

15

9.55 ± 3.36

-0.501

18

7.18 ± 3.50

0.461

0.051

1.385

sss

1st

29

29.86 ± 11.08

30

26.17 ± 11.08

0.205

0.858

sss

2nd

15

30.52 ± 8.96

-0.154

18

23.90 ± 9.36

0.527

0.041

1.538

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(83.52) = 0.30, p = 0.768, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.53 to 0.72)

2st

t(87.80) = 0.17, p = 0.863, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.76 to 0.91)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(77.91) = 0.14, p = 0.886, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.31 to 1.52)

2st

t(87.85) = 0.77, p = 0.442, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-1.12 to 2.54)

ras_confidence

1st

t(68.10) = 0.74, p = 0.460, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-1.64 to 3.59)

2st

t(87.38) = 0.66, p = 0.512, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-2.09 to 4.16)

ras_willingness

1st

t(65.85) = 0.25, p = 0.804, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.92 to 1.18)

2st

t(86.13) = 1.36, p = 0.178, Cohen d = -0.82, 95% CI (-0.39 to 2.06)

ras_goal

1st

t(68.74) = -0.10, p = 0.919, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.69 to 1.53)

2st

t(87.58) = 1.43, p = 0.156, Cohen d = -0.78, 95% CI (-0.54 to 3.33)

ras_reliance

1st

t(64.33) = 0.63, p = 0.532, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-1.01 to 1.94)

2st

t(84.54) = 1.41, p = 0.163, Cohen d = -0.91, 95% CI (-0.49 to 2.88)

ras_domination

1st

t(76.19) = -1.70, p = 0.093, Cohen d = 0.62, 95% CI (-2.13 to 0.17)

2st

t(87.91) = 0.40, p = 0.690, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.17 to 1.77)

symptom

1st

t(61.22) = 0.21, p = 0.833, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-4.60 to 5.69)

2st

t(77.96) = 0.13, p = 0.897, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-5.23 to 5.96)

slof_work

1st

t(62.37) = -0.09, p = 0.930, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-2.69 to 2.46)

2st

t(81.05) = -0.91, p = 0.365, Cohen d = 0.66, 95% CI (-4.16 to 1.54)

slof_relationship

1st

t(64.81) = 0.42, p = 0.675, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-2.45 to 3.77)

2st

t(85.13) = 0.66, p = 0.509, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-2.38 to 4.76)

satisfaction

1st

t(69.33) = 1.63, p = 0.108, Cohen d = -0.72, 95% CI (-0.64 to 6.35)

2st

t(87.71) = 0.50, p = 0.619, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-3.17 to 5.29)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(65.14) = 0.59, p = 0.558, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-1.36 to 2.50)

2st

t(85.48) = -0.65, p = 0.517, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-2.95 to 1.50)

mhc_social

1st

t(68.85) = -0.50, p = 0.616, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-3.46 to 2.07)

2st

t(87.60) = -1.24, p = 0.218, Cohen d = 0.68, 95% CI (-5.40 to 1.25)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(67.13) = 0.50, p = 0.620, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-2.46 to 4.10)

2st

t(86.96) = -0.69, p = 0.492, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-5.22 to 2.53)

resilisnce

1st

t(65.30) = 0.43, p = 0.667, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-1.78 to 2.76)

2st

t(85.64) = 0.50, p = 0.620, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-1.96 to 3.27)

social_provision

1st

t(67.97) = 0.80, p = 0.424, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.92 to 2.16)

2st

t(87.33) = 0.96, p = 0.339, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.95 to 2.72)

els_value_living

1st

t(66.85) = 1.18, p = 0.241, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-0.63 to 2.44)

2st

t(86.81) = 0.49, p = 0.626, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-1.36 to 2.25)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(67.35) = 2.55, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -1.23, 95% CI (0.44 to 3.57)

2st

t(87.07) = 1.16, p = 0.251, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (-0.78 to 2.94)

els

1st

t(65.51) = 2.11, p = 0.039, Cohen d = -1.11, 95% CI (0.16 to 5.67)

2st

t(85.84) = 1.00, p = 0.322, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (-1.60 to 4.80)

social_connect

1st

t(62.50) = -0.15, p = 0.880, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-5.17 to 4.44)

2st

t(81.35) = -0.33, p = 0.740, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-6.24 to 4.45)

shs_agency

1st

t(66.66) = 1.17, p = 0.248, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-1.00 to 3.83)

2st

t(86.70) = 1.16, p = 0.248, Cohen d = -0.68, 95% CI (-1.18 to 4.50)

shs_pathway

1st

t(64.15) = 1.32, p = 0.192, Cohen d = -0.75, 95% CI (-0.65 to 3.19)

2st

t(84.30) = 0.44, p = 0.659, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-1.70 to 2.67)

shs

1st

t(64.47) = 1.32, p = 0.190, Cohen d = -0.74, 95% CI (-1.36 to 6.72)

2st

t(84.72) = 0.96, p = 0.342, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (-2.40 to 6.84)

esteem

1st

t(87.79) = -0.27, p = 0.791, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-0.72 to 0.55)

2st

t(87.99) = -1.03, p = 0.306, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-1.31 to 0.42)

mlq_search

1st

t(73.73) = 0.08, p = 0.935, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.73 to 1.87)

2st

t(87.99) = -0.08, p = 0.937, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-2.35 to 2.17)

mlq_presence

1st

t(72.06) = -0.45, p = 0.658, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-2.53 to 1.61)

2st

t(87.99) = -0.21, p = 0.835, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-2.83 to 2.29)

mlq

1st

t(72.10) = -0.22, p = 0.829, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-3.95 to 3.18)

2st

t(87.99) = -0.15, p = 0.881, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-4.75 to 4.08)

empower

1st

t(65.43) = 0.68, p = 0.497, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-1.40 to 2.85)

2st

t(85.76) = -0.12, p = 0.906, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-2.60 to 2.31)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(78.31) = 0.42, p = 0.678, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.07 to 1.64)

2st

t(87.84) = -0.40, p = 0.689, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-2.11 to 1.40)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(66.09) = -2.30, p = 0.025, Cohen d = 1.17, 95% CI (-3.70 to -0.26)

2st

t(86.32) = -0.46, p = 0.648, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-2.47 to 1.54)

sss_affective

1st

t(63.37) = -1.30, p = 0.197, Cohen d = 0.78, 95% CI (-3.35 to 0.71)

2st

t(83.08) = -1.89, p = 0.063, Cohen d = 1.28, 95% CI (-4.45 to 0.12)

sss_behavior

1st

t(64.45) = -1.61, p = 0.112, Cohen d = 0.90, 95% CI (-3.70 to 0.39)

2st

t(84.70) = -1.73, p = 0.088, Cohen d = 1.11, 95% CI (-4.37 to 0.31)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(62.86) = -0.68, p = 0.501, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-2.86 to 1.41)

2st

t(82.12) = -1.98, p = 0.051, Cohen d = 1.38, 95% CI (-4.75 to 0.01)

sss

1st

t(62.04) = -1.28, p = 0.205, Cohen d = 0.86, 95% CI (-9.46 to 2.07)

2st

t(80.27) = -2.07, p = 0.041, Cohen d = 1.54, 95% CI (-12.99 to -0.27)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(43.08) = 0.85, p = 0.803, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.37 to 0.92)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(39.84) = 0.71, p = 0.968, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.85 to 1.76)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(35.47) = 0.61, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.29 to 2.41)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(34.54) = -0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-0.85 to 0.50)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(35.73) = 1.08, p = 0.571, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.54 to 1.79)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(33.93) = 2.24, p = 0.064, Cohen d = -0.73, 95% CI (0.09 to 1.83)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(39.01) = 1.60, p = 0.237, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.22 to 1.83)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(32.68) = -0.70, p = 0.973, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-3.19 to 1.55)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(33.14) = -2.03, p = 0.102, Cohen d = 0.67, 95% CI (-2.64 to 0.00)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(34.12) = -0.71, p = 0.965, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-2.55 to 1.23)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(35.97) = -0.69, p = 0.986, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-3.47 to 1.71)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(34.25) = -0.97, p = 0.674, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-1.77 to 0.62)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(35.77) = -0.16, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-2.17 to 1.86)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(35.06) = -1.05, p = 0.602, Cohen d = 0.34, 95% CI (-3.39 to 1.08)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(34.32) = 1.02, p = 0.632, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.71 to 2.13)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(35.41) = -0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-1.25 to 0.92)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(34.95) = 0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.88 to 1.19)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(35.16) = 0.37, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.88 to 1.28)

els

1st vs 2st

t(34.40) = 0.41, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.39 to 2.10)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(33.19) = 0.11, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-2.37 to 2.63)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(34.87) = 0.77, p = 0.892, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.00 to 2.22)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(33.86) = -0.33, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-1.31 to 0.94)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(33.99) = 0.38, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.96 to 2.87)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(47.72) = 0.73, p = 0.939, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.46 to 0.99)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(37.88) = -0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-1.64 to 1.38)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(37.14) = 0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.54 to 1.79)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(37.16) = -0.01, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-2.88 to 2.86)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(34.37) = -1.10, p = 0.556, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-2.06 to 0.61)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(40.05) = -0.16, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.36 to 1.16)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(34.64) = 0.99, p = 0.660, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.57 to 1.66)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(33.54) = -1.48, p = 0.297, Cohen d = 0.49, 95% CI (-1.95 to 0.31)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(33.98) = -1.10, p = 0.556, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.88 to 0.56)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(33.34) = -1.40, p = 0.339, Cohen d = 0.46, 95% CI (-1.93 to 0.35)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(33.01) = -1.60, p = 0.238, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-5.15 to 0.62)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(45.91) = 0.84, p = 0.805, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.40 to 0.98)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(41.89) = -0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.57 to 1.26)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(36.46) = 0.50, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.52 to 2.52)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(35.32) = -2.43, p = 0.041, Cohen d = 0.86, 95% CI (-1.62 to -0.14)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(36.79) = -1.36, p = 0.367, Cohen d = 0.48, 95% CI (-2.12 to 0.42)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(34.57) = 0.50, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.72 to 1.19)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(40.86) = -0.86, p = 0.792, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-1.58 to 0.64)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(33.04) = -0.50, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-3.23 to 1.95)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(33.60) = -0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-1.57 to 1.32)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(34.80) = -1.18, p = 0.493, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-3.26 to 0.87)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(37.09) = 0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-1.91 to 3.72)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(34.97) = 1.13, p = 0.536, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.58 to 2.02)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(36.84) = 1.13, p = 0.531, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.97 to 3.41)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(35.96) = 0.84, p = 0.813, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-1.42 to 3.44)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(35.04) = 0.72, p = 0.957, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-1.00 to 2.09)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(36.39) = -0.74, p = 0.933, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-1.61 to 0.75)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(35.82) = 1.12, p = 0.544, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.51 to 1.74)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(36.08) = 1.94, p = 0.120, Cohen d = -0.69, 95% CI (-0.05 to 2.30)

els

1st vs 2st

t(35.15) = 1.79, p = 0.166, Cohen d = -0.64, 95% CI (-0.23 to 3.57)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(33.66) = 0.49, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-2.07 to 3.39)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(35.73) = 0.42, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.39 to 2.12)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(34.48) = 0.99, p = 0.656, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.63 to 1.83)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(34.64) = 0.70, p = 0.973, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.72 to 3.54)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(51.58) = 1.62, p = 0.223, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.15 to 1.40)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(39.45) = 0.04, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.61 to 1.67)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(38.53) = -0.08, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.88 to 1.74)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(38.55) = -0.04, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-3.19 to 3.05)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(35.11) = 0.20, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.31 to 1.60)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(42.15) = 0.80, p = 0.854, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.82 to 1.91)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(35.44) = -1.62, p = 0.227, Cohen d = 0.58, 95% CI (-2.19 to 0.24)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(34.09) = 0.04, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.21 to 1.25)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(34.63) = -0.43, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-1.61 to 1.05)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(33.84) = 1.40, p = 0.344, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.39 to 2.10)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(33.44) = 0.43, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-2.49 to 3.81)

Plot

Clinical significance